[Archived] Debate on Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

[Al]

If you are using this in reference to marriage, are you aware you are using a couple who did not tie the knot, raised a murderer and didn't exist as a template for how it should be done?

I really hope the first gay marriage is between two men called Adam and Steve.

More likely to be Audley and Rupert.

[Amo]

If you are using this in reference to marriage, are you aware you are using a couple who did not tie the knot, raised a murderer and didn't exist as a template for how it should be done?

Bible Studies with Braddock. This stuff writes itself.

[thenodrog]

To be discriminated against for being gay is like not allowing people with ginger hair to get married.

...although that would help to prevent the spread of 'ginger'...

The opposite. Us gingers would be able to knob around at will without losing the house!

[thenodrog]

This isn't as trivial as symbolically pushing the boundaries back. It is very real and far more important than mere symbolism thenodrog. Heterosexual people are allowed to marry. It is a civil contract and has nothing to do with religion in its essence. Religion took it up as their own, as kind of custodians, long after marriage had begun. The religious in this country were against marriage when it first developed and only warmed to it when they were able to make money from holding the ceremonies. Since then things have become warped and people think that it's essentially a religious ceremony. It is not.

If homosexual people who love each other and aren't doing it for reasons such as immigration or entrapment are allowed to do it, then why aren't homosexuals allowed to do it. This isn't a case of letting the homosexuals have something to keep them happy. If a man has been in jailed for x amount of years and then it is found he is innocent he is freed because of obligation. We don't just say, hmmm go on then, we will let you go, we are obliged to free them. The same is the case here and we are obliged to give gays the same rights as the rest of society, belatedly so. Doing so does not infringe upon others. I am very sure that if you were not allowed the same rights as homosexuals then you would be complaining.

As for the thinking about it, nobody is asking you to think about homosexuality. Nobody can choose what you think of, but would you like to ban public affection for homosexuals alone, or heterosexuals too? Personally I'm not the biggest fans of couples getting all lovey-dovey in public, but it's hardly the end of the world and I wouldn't bring in any laws to stop it. And how far are you going with public signs of affection? Kissing or hand holding? Or something else either way?

Can you explain your statement 'I'm not opposed to homosexuals per sae'?

I can't see why you think something that happens in nature is unnatural. It is simply something that you are not used to because you have been sheltered in your upbringing thanks to the fear of homosexuals felt and some still do about being public about their orientation. Thankfully, when equal rights do prevail, the dinosaurs pass on and we have generations being born into a society where homosexuality is acknowledged and understood views such as your own, which you are free to hold, will have died down considerably. Naturally homophobia will never die out, in the same way racism or sexism won't, but it will hopefully become part of the minority.

I hope you are around when transgender issues really take off. Would be intrigued to see your reaction to that.

Got a number of fags as freinds who are 'coupled up' but who in the main behave respectably enough to the extent that many people might not even suspect their leanings.

Now it's your turn..... what do you think is the 'trigger' for homosexuality? Given that most human characteristics and traits are hereditary and homosexuality by definition can't be.

[Steve Moss]

Now it's your turn..... what do you think is the 'trigger' for homosexuality? Given that most human characteristics and traits are hereditary and homosexuality by definition can't be.

Is this technically true? My understanding (limited I admit) is that many genetic issues are latent or only come to the fore when two otherwise innocuous genes combine.

A horrible example would be when two healthy parents have a child who has mental or physical issues.

A funny example would be when my blond hair blue eyed sister marries a obviously Hispanic male and they promptly have a blond haired blue eyed pale skinned daughter (who, thankfully, looks a lot like her paternal grandmother). Turns out my brother in law had an Anglo-Texan great grandmother and the gene was lurking about.

And what is hilarious is that this Anglo-Saxon looking little girl will get preferential treatment as her last name is "Hernandez" though she'll never suffer an ounce of discrimination in her life.

[Plastics]

Got a number of fags as freinds who are 'coupled up' but who in the main behave respectably enough to the extent that many people might not even suspect their leanings.

Now it's your turn..... what do you think is the 'trigger' for homosexuality? Given that most human characteristics and traits are hereditary and homosexuality by definition can't be.

I'm sure your friends would approve of you as using such a word about them. It saddens me to see you use it.

Do you get just as annoyed at straight friends when they say something that makes you aware of their sexuality or is it just the gay ones?

I'm unsure of what the exact trigger is for homosexuality and whilst I would be interested if it was discovered I don't see what this has to do with our current discussion. I was far more interested in your prejudices but if you don't wish to discuss them then fair enough but I had asked you a few other questions which you didn't bother with. That's fine if you don't want to answer (possibly time reasons as the reply could be quite lengthy) but changing the subject wasn't something I was looking for.

[Rovermatt]

To quote James Carville, “I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn’t have to get one.”

Some of the anti-gay marriage voices are quite lucid but I’m never less than fascinated by the homophobic idiots who spend an inordinate amount of their time agonising and obsessing over the mechanics of homosexual activity.

If a gay couple wishes to get married, go right ahead and let them. Personally I used to be against the concept of gay marriage but I was in favour of full and equal legal protection for such people when it came to spousal and property rights etc.

Recently however I’ve come to realise that I don’t care how another loving couple chooses to cement their relationship. It makes no difference to me but all the difference to them. Finding someone you love, and who loves you back, is a rare thing. It’s something we should all be grateful for when it comes along. Good luck to them I say.

[thenodrog]

I agree Matt.

btw whats your husband called?

[Rovermatt]

I agree Matt.

btw whats your husband called?

Hassan. We're very much in love.

[DanLad]

If the church is against gay sex, shouldn't it be for gay marriage?

[Rovermatt]

If the church is against gay sex, shouldn't it be for gay marriage?

[Mike E]

If the church is against gay sex, shouldn't it be for gay marriage?

It's also against pre-marital sex and re-marriage after a divorce, but doesn't seem to make a song and dance about those things. I was turned away from entering Canon Slade school just because my Uncle took his own life (something the church is also against). Religious people are right @#/? most of the time, I find. Or at least, the ones who try to get me to ignore logic.

[neekoy]

It is just hilarious this continues to get air time and effort in all of our countries, churches shouldn't be forced to marry anyone and anyone forcing them is only out to make a political statement.

The problem is the issue of marriage licenses, in Australia you can get married wherever you want, in a park, on a boat, however the current UK rules around location really do limit the scope of marriage ceremony. Open up the opportunity for any location to be open for marriage and you will help this situation along with less chance of "offending" the church.

The rule of marriage should be between "consenting adults", that way all this rubbish about dogs and children is quite rightly thrown to the tip.